Thursday, January 15, 2015

Typical Leftist refusal to see the whole picture -- that Arab deaths at Israeli hands would stop if they stopped attacking Israel

A BBC reporter has faced calls to resign after he told the daughter of Holocaust survivors in Paris: 'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'.

Journalist Tim Willcox sparked anger during his coverage of yesterday's rally in Paris, held in memory of the 17 victims of last week's terror attacks, including four Jewish people in a siege at a Kosher supermarket.

During a live report from the streets of Paris, Willcox was speaking to a number of participants in the march, including one woman who expressed her fears that Jews were being persecuted, and 'the situation is going back to the days of the 1930s in Europe.'

Willcox was speaking to this woman, named as Chava, at the Paris rally who expressed her fears that Jews were being persecuted, and 'the situation is going back to the days of the 1930s in Europe'

To this, Willcox, who was broadcasting on the BBC News channel replied: 'Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.'

When the woman, shaking her head, responded saying: 'We can't do an amalgam', he told her: 'You understand everything is seen from different perspectives.'

She was identified during the broadcast as 'Chava', and told Willcox when she was introduced on screen that she had lived in France for 20 years, but was originally from Israel.

She said her parents were from Poland, and came to Israel after the Second World War. She had attended the rally with a friend, Aziz, who is French-born and comes from a Muslim background, with his parents being originally from Algeria.

Willcox has today apologised for his comments, taking to Twitter to say he had not meant to cause offence.

He wrote: 'Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question in a live interview in Paris yesterday - it was entirely unintentional.'

But many viewers also used the social network to express their anger and concerns over Willcox's rally coverage, including historian and BBC presenter Simon Schama.

He wrote on Twitter: 'Appalling of @BBCTimWillcox to imply any and all JEWS (not Israelis) responsible for treatment of Palestinians by hectoring lady in Paris.'

And added: 'Then he had gall to patronise her at the end - "you see people see it from all sides" That Palestinian plight justifies anti-semitic murder?'

Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard also joined the debate, tweeting: 'What is @BBCTimWillcox's problem with Jews? Once is problematic. Twice is a pattern.'

The Campaign Against Antisemitism, which works to combat anti-Semitism in Britain, has circulated footage of the incident, and has called on those offended by it to formally complain to the BBC.

Director of communications, Jonathan Sacerdoti, told MailOnline Willcox's Twitter apology was 'not really good enough'. 'It's an admission he has done something wrong, but it's incumbent on the BBC to make an on-air apology and to investigate his behaviour.'

There have also been calls for the reporter to resign. Twitter user I Support Israel said: 'Retweet if you believe @BBCTimWillcox should be fired for making this anti-Semitic suggestion'.

The comment was re-tweeted 41 times, while others expressed their views on the controversy, adding the hashtag #WillcoxMustGo.

An online petition was also set up, demanding that Willcox 'personally apologise', and calling for 're-assurance that this constant anti-Semitic behaviour from the BBC will come to an end'.

The petition authors said: 'It was the wrong time and place to ask such a disgraceful question. The unity march was a time for France and the rest of the world to come together and unite against the rising threat of terrorism and anti-Semitism, as well as an opportunity to mourn and remember those killed in the horrific attacks.

'Nevertheless, Mr Willcox showed no sensitivity and asked a tasteless question on live TV which has outraged those who have seen the clip, as well as leaving the interviewee speechless and defenceless.'

It is not the first time Willcox has been accused of anti-Semitism.

In November during a review of the following day's newspapers on the BBC News channel, Willcox, who was anchoring the discussion, faced criticism after discussion of a story about Labour leader Ed Miliband reportedly losing Jewish support.

A guest on the programme, political observer Jo Phillips, had referred to a 'Jewish lobby', which had abandoned support for Labour over his condemnation of Israeli attacks on Gaza.

There was anger that Willcox had not pulled up the guest on her comments, and had added: 'A lot of these prominent Jewish faces will be very much against the mansion tax'.

The BBC defended the comments, and said: 'It was clear that he was not suggesting that Jewish people in particular are against the mansion tax.'

Mr Sacerdoti said his organisation and 33 individuals had complained to the BBC about the November broadcast.

'The BBC said there was no anti-Semitism in what he said, but according to the MacPherson definition, if a minority group feels it is anti-Semitic, it should be considered as such,' he said. 'It's obviously offending people.'

He added: 'And now he's done it again in an extreme example when people are mourning the deaths of four Jews, among the other victims, and his reaction is to say this to a Jewish woman who is saying it's like the 1930s. 'To somehow bring in mitigating circumstances, is terrible.

'The EUMC's [European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, now the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights] working definition of anti-Semitism includes collective blaming of Jews for the actions of Israel.'

Alex Benjamin, Executive Director of Brussels-based group European Friends of Israel, told MailOnline he would 'echo the calls for Willcox to resign'.

'I was not the only one who was utterly disgusted at the deeply patronising, offensive and frankly partisan way he hassled this woman - a woman who as a Parisian Jew is genuinely concerned for her well-being – seeking to justify the abhorrent murders of four jews in Paris with the Israel Palestinian conflict,' he said.

'It was tactless, arrogant and he should at resign.'

A BBC spokesman said: 'Tim Willcox has apologised for what he accepts was a poorly phrased question during an in-depth live interview with two friends, one Jewish and of Israeli birth, the other of Algerian Muslim heritage, where they discussed a wide range of issues affecting both the Muslim and Jewish communities in France. He had no intention of causing offence.'

Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offence. Guidance from leading educational publisher the Oxford University Press prohibits authors from including anything that could be perceived as pork-related in their books.

The bizarre clampdown, apparently aimed at avoiding offence among Jews and Muslims, emerged yesterday during a discussion about free speech on Radio 4’s Today programme. It was immediately branded ‘nonsensical political correctness’.

Presenter Jim Naughtie – whose writer wife Eleanor Updale is in talks with Oxford University Press (OUP) over an educational book series – said: ‘I've got a letter here that was sent out by OUP to an author doing something for young people.

‘Among the things prohibited in the text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork.

‘Now, if a respectable publisher, tied to an academic institution, is saying you've got to write a book in which you cannot mention pigs because some people might be offended, it’s just ludicrous. It is just a joke.'

The OUP says its guidelines exist because it needs to make its educational material available to as many people as possible.

A spokesman said: ‘Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities.

'Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.’

But last night the publishing rules were ridiculed amid doubts either Muslims or Jews would be offended by mention of farm animals in a children’s book. Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘How on earth can anyone find the word “pig” or “pork” offensive? 'No word is offensive. It is the context in which it is used that is offensive.’

He added: ‘On the one hand you have politicians and the great and the good falling over each other to say how much they believe in freedom of speech and on the other hand they are presiding over people being unable to use and write words that are completely inoffensive. 'We have got to get a grip on this nonsensical political correctness. ‘The political correctness brigade appear to have taken control of our schools.

'The Secretary of State needs to get a grip over this and make sure this ridiculous ban is stopped at once.’

He added that perhaps one good thing to come out of the Paris terror attacks was a groundswell of support for freedom of speech.

The chief executive of campaigning group Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsberg, said: ‘It is difficult to imagine any context in which images of everyday objects – like pigs – or the word itself should be banned from being used in a children’s book.’

A spokesman for the Jewish Leadership Council added: ‘Jewish law prohibits eating pork, not the mention of the word, or the animal from which it derives.

Warning over rising tide of anti-Semitism in Britain with one in eight people claiming that Jews talk about the Holocaust to get sympathy

Nearly half of Britons think at least one anti-Semitic view presented to them was 'definitely or probably true', a survey has revealed.

One in eight said they thought Jews talked about the Holocaust to get sympathy, the poll found.

One in four believed Jewish people 'chase money more than others', while one in six felt Jews thought they were better than other people and had too much power in the media.

Some 269,000 Jewish people live in Britain, or 0.4 per cent of the population, according to the CAA.

Last year saw the most anti-Semitic incidents recorded by police since records began 30 years ago, the campaign said.

Chairman Gideon Falter said: 'The results of our survey are a shocking wake-up call straight after the atrocities in Paris. Britain is at a tipping point.'

The survey found that one in four Britons think Jewish people chase money more than others while one in six claimed that Jews thought they were better than others and had too much power in the media.

One in ten said Jews were not has honest in business and one in five said they questioned their loyalty to Britain due to their connection with Israel. Ten percent of those questioned would not be happy if a relative married a Jew.

In a separate survey carried out by the CAA, more than half of British Jews feared they had no future in the UK and a quarter said they have considered leaving the country in the last two years.

The poll of 2,230 British Jews found 56 per cent felt that anti-Semitism now echoes the 1930s, while 58 per cent believed Jews may have no long-term future in Europe.

Some 45 per cent felt their family was threatened by Islamist extremism, while 63 per cent thought authorities let too much anti-Semitism go unpunished.

Mr Falter added: 'Britain is at a tipping point. Unless anti-Semitism is met with zero tolerance, it will grow and British Jews will increasingly question their place in their own country. Britain's Jews must be shown that they are not alone.'

Jonathan Sacerdoti, who is also from the campaign, said: 'Jewish people have contributed to almost every part of British life, yet rising anti-Semitism here and across Europe means that now more than ever Jews are afraid. Some are even reconsidering their future here. 'British values of tolerance and pluralism must be upheld, so that minority groups like Jews feel comfortable and protected.'

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said: 'Jews are an important part of the British community, and we would be diminished without them. 'Anyone who peddles anti-Semitic views is attacking Britain and British values.

'This Government has done much to enhance Britain's status as a safe, tolerant place for Jewish people but we are not complacent. We remain committed to tackling it wherever and whenever it occurs and continue to take a zero-tolerance approach. 'Those who commit hate crimes will be punished with the full force of the law.'

Snowden leaks incite vigilantes: Former MI5 chief claims Britons will seek to defend themselves against jihadis if government does not pass new anti-terror laws

A former head of MI5 last night warned the revelations by CIA fugitive Edward Snowden had left Britain at risk of ‘vigilantism’ because it was less able to protect itself from Islamist fanaticism.

Breaking his silence on the devastating impact of the security breach, Jonathan Evans said: ‘The result of this can only be that the overall risk of a successful terrorist attack in this country has risen.’

In a chilling intervention, he also warned that events in Syria and Iraq had given jihadis a ‘jolt of energy’ and the Government must complete the ‘unfinished business’ of giving the security services extra surveillance powers – or risk ‘vigilantism’ on the streets as citizens look to protect themselves.

Lord Evans said: ‘Inadequate security will breed vulnerability and fear and that in turn will tend to limit people’s ability to contribute to civil society, will tend to provoke vigilantism and will tend to diminish people’s ability to exercise the very civil liberties and human rights that we wish to sustain.’

The ex-spy chief’s comments came amid a warning from the EU’s security chief that Europe faces its ‘most serious’ threat since 9/11. Rob Wainwright, the head of Europol, revealed there were between 3,000 and 5,000 EU nationals who posed a terrorist threat after travelling overseas to countries such as Syria.

He told MPs: ‘Clearly, we’re dealing with a large body of mainly young men who have the potential to come back and have the potential or the intent and capability to carry out attacks we have seen in Paris.’

Lord Evans, who stood down as head of MI5 in April 2013, used his maiden speech in the House of Lords last night to deliver a devastating analysis of the harm caused by Snowden, who stole and leaked thousands of documents detailing intelligence-gathering techniques used by Western intelligence agencies.

The revelations, printed in The Guardian, have led to terrorists changing the way they communicate. They have also made internet companies less willing to co-operate with MI5 and GCHQ for fear of upsetting privacy campaigners.

Lord Evans, who sits as an independent crossbench peer, said: ‘When I left MI5 in 2013, I felt cautiously optimistic that we were over the worst as far as Al Qaeda and Islamist terrorist attacks were concerned. ‘It seemed to me that we were making significant progress. Regrettably, subsequent events have proved that judgment to be wrong.

‘The atrocious killing of Fusilier Rigby in May 2013 demonstrated the reality of the threat we face in this country and the brutal murders in Paris last week demonstrate that this is a European and international problem, not one we face alone.

‘The revelations made by Edward Snowden . . . have clearly led a reduction in the ability of the security agencies both here and overseas to access and read the communications of terrorists internationally, with the result that as the threat from terrorism has gone up in the last two years, the ability of the security agencies to counter those threats has gone down.’

Lord Evans also warned the current situation of extremists returning to the UK from Syria – 600 have travelled out, according to MI5 – put him in mind of the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan before 9/11. He said: ‘On their return, many of them were even more radical than they had been when they departed.

‘They had experience of combat and had been trained in violence and they had an international network of support on which they could draw. Those circumstances led to a series of attacks internationally and over a long period, and I fear we may be facing the same situation.’

Mr Wainwright said the terror threat was the ‘most serious’ the continent had faced since the fall of the Twin Towers more than 13 years ago.

He told the Commons Home Affairs Committee that Europol had been building a database of EU citizens who had travelled overseas to fight. So far it has collected 2,500 names of suspects from security agencies across member states – but he believes as many as 5,000 may have gone abroad.

It came amid a continued row at the top of Government over surveillance powers. On Monday, Prime Minister David Cameron said a future Conservative government would pass laws which aim to deny terrorists a ‘safe space’ to communicate online.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

1 comment:

Anonymous
said...

Re Oxford Press Banning mention of pigs and pork so as not to offend Muslims. This is what I term "passive inducement", and define as acting receptively to an interpersonal dynamic that is not there, or to what someone is not doing, or to what exists to a less extent than it actually does, or exists in potential or dormant form but is not currently active, so as to create a receptive vacuum which draws the desired behaviour from the (unsuspecting) target person.

I have witnessed fellow clinical counsellors and psychologists (who are all leftist/feminists) practice this passive inducement as a matter of course. They have it down to a fine art, in both practice and imparting to others, so they surreptitiously train students to do it too, and their female clients to do it in their relationships. Many work in gov funded clinical counselling centres and they combine this passive inducement with pseudo-caring, fake altruism and feigned innocence to incite and escalate aggression in male clients, especially white male clients, which they then use the examples in stats and all sorts of further manipulations and gains in what they see as advantageous, not to mention the opportunity of turning away depressed males from counselling services to hopefully go and commit suicide because "Those men are dinosaurs anyway and the sooner they are all dead and gone the better, because they are the problem." But that is a digression. I believe these leftists ban things and make a show of banning things like the mention of pork and other things supposedly so as not to offend Muslims, and feign caring about not offending Muslims, so as to create a receptive interpersonal and cultural vacuum that induces and escalates Muslim sensitivity; to incite Muslims into being offended and feeling justified about being offended when pork is mentioned. Leftists use various forms of passive inducement to manipulate Muslims to be more offended and demanding than they would otherwise be. They do it to make them allies in hate against the west. Leftists are master manipulators.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

A face of Leftist hate: Cory Booker, (D-NJ)

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

'White Privilege'. .. Oh yes. .. That was abundant in the Irish potato famines. ... And in the Scottish Highland Clearances. ...And in transportations to Australia. ... And in Workhouses. ... 'White privilege' was absolutely RIFE!

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

RELIGION:

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here